D&D 4E Not going to 4e

[Mistwell]

Wow, where do you find all those things? Must be in some of the 3.5 books from the last year. I have not seen the things you mention, so I am not sure of the entire point you are trying to make.

Reserve spells (non-vancian magic) and manuevers (book of nine swords). Are you saying anyone who is playing 3.5 with those expansion books isn't playing D&D at all? Or are you instead saying they are not playing the style of D&D you prefer?

 

[Sunderstone]

I don't see how you can regard 3e as D&D and 4e not. Certainly not late 3e which has non-Vancian magic, fireball monks, stage monsters and interesting magic items. You'd be forced into the strange position of viewing D&D 3e with certain splats as being a completely different game than if you don't use those splats. Even though the same core rules would be present.

But thats the point, its the "Splats". Keep it in the splats I say, not in the 4E CORE. This way we at least can keep the core and decide if we want a particular splat. 4E is going to ram splat down our throats and merge it with the core.

FWIW, I liked every edition thus far (even 2nd edition), and I couldnt wait to get the 3E core books, and I wasnt disappointed. I avoided the entire 3.5 "Complete" series after purchasing the largely broken softcover ones for 3E. I skipped ToM and Bo9S as well. The only bad experience since cutting out splats that ive had was the Elemental Archon PrC from the FR books.
I think largely untested splats are what leads us to alot of rules problems (besides clunky grappling, early polymorph, etc from the core). Instead of fixing/streamlining these, WotC cries "The game is broken and we are going to rebuild the game from the ground up".

So what do they do? Do they learn from mistakes, doesnt look like it. Now we get splats integrated into the core with the same book, zero backwards compatibility, and to top it off most of the changes seem to be Flavor more than Rules. All we hear is news on flavor changes, Id rather see heavy emphasis on rules problems.
I see elements of Eberron (possible warforged in the realms), FR (the new core), and DL (Draconians a.k.a. Dragonborne) all thrown together into one edition for the "coolness factor" which preserves nothing from each settings particular flavor. And they have the brass ones to go on record and say, "too bad we are doing it anyway, you cant stop it".

3.5 isnt broken, not by a mile. It could use some streamlining for the clunky stuff, but its not broken. As Darrin Drader posted, 4E is a whole new ball of wax, some parts will be clunky there as well as it will be so radically new. There will be errata/enhancements for it as well (that you will have to pay monthly for, thats my guess).
New Core books every year is just a way of packaging errata for us to burn money on, cloaked with some new stuff to keep us quiet.

As always I end with.... 4E is NOT D&D, its WotC's new rpg "Warlocks and Warriors".

 

[Mistwell]

But thats the point, its the "Splats". Keep it in the splats I say, not in the 4E CORE. This way we at least can keep the core and decide if we want a particular splat. 4E is going to ram splat down our throats and merge it with the core.

Saying "I would prefer that material be in expansion books" is different than saying "anyone using those expansion books isn't playing D&D".

The response was to folks claiming it wasn't D&D.

As always I end with 4E is NOT D&D... its WotC's new rpg "Warlocks and Warriors".

And I see even you are doing it.

4e is D&D. It's not the D&D you prefer, but it is D&D. It's the difference between one being merely your expression of preference, and the other being your expression of a claim to objective truth.

 

[Sunderstone]

Saying "I would prefer that material be in expansion books" is different than saying "anyone using those expansion books isn't playing D&D".

The response was to folks claiming it wasn't D&D.



And I see even you are doing it.

4e is D&D. It's not the D&D you prefer, but it is D&D. It's the difference between one being merely your expression of preference, and the other being your expression of a claim to objective truth.

My ending comment is directed at the flavor changes only. I dont see that as D&D but you are telling me its D&D so it must be true as your opinion seems to hold more weight than mine.
And as you say ...

The response was to folks claiming it wasn't D&D.

So there are others that feel the same as I do about 4E being called D&D.

 

[Ty]

Umbran made a good point back on Pg 8 but the guy who the post was originally directed at (the D&D killer) makes a point somewhat hamfistedly I think that's been missing from a lot of the discussions.

The comments about Vancian vs. Non-Vancian spellcasting also raise this issue. Part of the problem is defining what "Core D&D" should look like. Anyone with half a book collection of the history of D&D knows that spell points was first introduced back in Skills and Powers. It worked okay. It didn't break the game at all but it was an alternative to Vancian spellcasting.

Fast forward to Unearthed Arcana's most recent incarnation. Presented in that book are the options for Spell Recharge (which is basically anti-Vancian at it's core), spell points, and a host of other rules variants. Basically, the system is there to be tweaked and WotC even provided the method of doing the tweaks. To me, it seems the tweaks to the core are now being made the core.


This leads to my next point. MANY of the current designers have publicly advocated the elimination of what have been termed "sacred cows" in various forms, medium, and outlets of information and via inference from their professional background statements and personal gaming histories.

That being said, I don't really care one way or another if they decide X and Y sacred cow needs slaughtering anymore. It's their game to tweak since they're the ones getting paid by the suits. So be it if they can lodge solid arguments regarding a necessary change. More power to them. Personally, I've been dissappointed with the job that has been done after the original Complete ____ series by this current crop of designers. The second set was complete $%#@ in our group but it doesn't mean somebody didn't like them.


I do make two observations about this though;

1. With most big, corporate decisions, it's not wise if you don't have a "red team" out there playing devil's advocate to proposed changes that are drastic in scope. I have no idea how WotC operates frankly. I do however, detect quite a bit of "group think" in the public statements, which is to be expected. I don't see any evidence of the existence of an internal "red team" though.

2. "We all have an agenda." I don't know who to quote on that statement but it's true in every aspect of life. I accept that the designer's agenda is different than mine for the direction of D&D but it's just 4th Edition D&D. I once heard a quote in corporate that I think is applicable here;

"We all die, retire or get fired. The product will change because the customers are always there buying the product they want despite your best efforts to the contrary."

It will all work out in the end, we're just along for the ride to see who gets fired before the next big thing comes along.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

on, I question whether or not 4e has too many degrees of freedom relative to what D&D has been understood to be by a majority of the fan base over time.

I think the problem (though only for the case of the discussion) is that there is no single, unified fan base with a large majority.

Before 3rd Edition, there weren't feats in the game. This means at some point, the majority of the fan base didn't consider them important/necessary/integral of D&D. Does this mean it will never be seen as a part of D&D? Should it be eliminated from D&D games, because it's not true to its core? (Some D20 variants in fact do just that. But others add even more - more feats, or add similar concepts like talents).
I started D&D with the 3rd edition. I have a different opinion on what is defining for D&D then someone that started with OD&D or someone that started with AD&D.

How many players did come aboard D&D 3? If they didn't like the previous edition, can they constitute to the D&D fan base and be part of the majority that defines what D&D is? What if D&D 4 also adds different, new (and as many as D&D 3 gamers) - can they "contribute" to the definition of D&D? Or if older editions lose players, does this mean that older editions of D&D can be no longer considered D&D? If the individual editions are not static, what is the core of D&D, what defines it? Is there really a fixed point where you can say: "That's D&D, and beyond that, that's something else"?

I think everything is D&D that can lead its lineage back to D&D by having some elements of the previous editions, maybe with a new spin, adding a few tricks, removing some old ones, keeping a few others. If D&D stands on its cover, it will always be some kind of D&D. Even if it's a version of D&D some players of different editions don't like particularly much or wouldn't touch with a 10 ft pole.

 

[Mistwell]

My ending comment is directed at the flavor changes only. I dont see that as D&D but you are telling me its D&D so it must be true as your opinion seems to hold more weight than mine.
And as you say ...

So there are others that feel the same as I do about 4E being called D&D.

Yes but "what is D&D" is a question with an objective answer. It's not a subjective one. "What is the style of D&D that I like" is a subjective question.

3.5 with expansions looks drastically more different from OD&D than the differences between 4e and 3.5e with expansions. And yet, 3.5 with expansions was (and is) D&D, just as much as OD&D was (and is) D&D. 4e will still have classes and races and dungeons and monsters and wilderness adventures and quests and all the major summary themes of OD&D, 3.5e D&D, and all the other versions of D&D. The details are different between the editions, but the broad outline and theme is not. It's all D&D (just different flavors).

And I don't see that as "What is Mistwell's opinion of what D&D is". I see that as the objective answer - the one that goes into things like Wikipedia or encyclopedias or quizz shows or game conventions or ordinary conversation or any other place where the general question might be asked "What is D&D". The answer that will come back is "D&D is a RPG game with themes X Y and Z that has various editions including the latest edition, 4e" or something like that. 4e will be included in that answer as a version of D&D. It's not the version you like, it's not the one you prefer or want to play, but it will go down in history as part of the definition of "What is D&D".

 

[Sunderstone]

Yes but "what is D&D" is a question with an objective answer. It's not a subjective one. "What is the style of D&D that I like" is a subjective question.

3.5 with expansions looks drastically more different from OD&D than the differences between 4e and 3.5e with expansions. And yet, 3.5 with expansions was (and is) D&D, just as much as OD&D was (and is) D&D. 4e will still have classes and races and dungeons and monsters and wilderness adventures and quests and all the major summary themes of OD&D, 3.5e D&D, and all the other versions of D&D. The details are different between the editions, but the broad outline and theme is not. It's all D&D (just different flavors).

Solid argument, but 4E is a much more radical departure from the norm. New Core Races and Core Classes etc. Every edition before this was fairly the same with their CORE. 4E is mixing splat races and classes into the CORE without giving us that splat choice. Yes 3.5E is D&D with all its splats.... because those splats are OPTIONAL, so we can still preserve that core. 4E is not going to be built that way.

 

[Doug McCrae]

But thats the point, its the "Splats". Keep it in the splats I say, not in the 4E CORE. This way we at least can keep the core and decide if we want a particular splat. 4E is going to ram splat down our throats and merge it with the core.

Isn't it a great way of testing new ideas? I imagine the warlock, reserve feats and Tome of Battle proved to be popular, more popular than gnomes and bards, hence the changes to core.

It's pretty much the same as the change from OD&D to 1e. Thieves, paladins, assassins, monks etc weren't in OD&D core. They came from 1970s splatbooks such as Greyhawk and Blackmoor and were amalgamated into the 1e core rules. Was Gary ramming the thief down our throats in 1978?

 

[Fifth Element]

4E is NOT D&D, its WotC's new rpg "Warlocks and Warriors".

Wasn't that a TSR board game from the late 70s?